Not at all. Try reading any basic college text on genetics. Evolutionary processes produce new information every generation. The beneficial (and neutral) information tends to accumulate over time. There is no known limit to how much information can accumulate.
Sorry if the scientific facts bother you but that’s not science’s problem.
Not at all. Believing in creation is not the same as espousing the idea that the phenomena under investigation is miraculous. Galileo, an orthodox Catholic, was adamant that physical knowledge was to be gained by observation and experimentation, and that how the heavens go was a matter of nature. Far from invoking the supernatural, Newton elevated natural causation in a mechanical universe. More devout and orthodox Christian scientists such as Kelvin and Maxwell were always guided by the expectation of the workings of material natural law. The contemporary framework of ID, on the other hand, is actively seeking the inadequacy of material cause as an explanation, and it is not legitimate to conflate that effort with the practice of earlier Christian investigators. My claim that ID has no heuristic value and has never motivated discovery still stands.
This is wrong. Newton was able to see where natural causes are operating but also where they are not.
The planets and comets will constantly pursue their revolu-tions in orbits given in kind and position, according to the laws above explained; but though these bodies may, indeed, continue in their orbits by the mere laws of gravity, yet they could by no means have at first derived the regular position of the orbits themselves from those laws. This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent Being.(Principia, “General Scholium,” 1713)
The junk DNA saga invalidates your claim.
You had best expand on this. Your claim seems on the surface to be nonsensical. I think you’re saying that ID predicts that there will be no junk DNA, and that this idea motivated researchers to discover that there is no junk DNA. But not one part of that is true.
You really, really badly need to get out of that reality-denying echo-chamber you inhabit. Actually, I don’t know. Here you are, outside of it and with informed and intelligent people trying to educate you, and you still don’t seem able to learn anything. I honestly cannot understand how this happens.
And he was dead wrong about that, wasn’t he? We now know how all that came about from the moment of the Big Bang, and “the counsel and dominion of an intelligent Being” had nothing to do with it.
I am saying that ID predicts that most DNA will be found to be functional, not that there will be no junk at all. I am also saying that on this issue of junk DNA, the evolutionary mindset has impeded scientific progress.
Why is that a prediction of ID? From what tenet of ID does that follow? Are you claiming you know how your Designer thinks when designing things?
Easy. Take any line of computer code. Or any piece of literature. Would you expect to see a lot gibberish there?
Are you now claiming humans designed biological genomes?
You dodged the questions. Please try again.
Why is that a prediction of ID? From what tenet of ID does that follow?
ID predicts no such thing, and many prominent IDers have said so. After all, who are you to constrain what God would or would not do? Further, most DNA has not been found to be functional. And “the evolutionary mindset”, as you call it, is merely the ability to credit scientific findings.
Behe says lots of dumb anti-science things to pander to his Fundamentalist religious, scientifically illiterate audience. Please explain in your own words and not deflect with “This ID-Creationist says”.
Could you quote the evidence Behe provided that falsified the current consensus account of cosmologists, physicists and astronomers regarding the process by which the existing universe evolved since the Big Bang? I am surprised this momentous finding has not received more attention, and people are just talking about the dumb mistakes Behe made about the genomes of polar bears.
This surprise me. Do you have quotes to support this claim?
God is a rational being. As such, he wouldn’t build a genome with vast amounts of useless, junk DNA.
As an aside, I find it quite ironic that you blame me for constraining what God would or would not do when a lot of evolutionists are well know to resort to this argument for dismissing ID.
When were you granted this divine knowledge to be able to say what God would or wouldn’t do? Like leaving so many pseudogenes and unexpressed genes in the genomes of so many species?
How did you determine God is 100% rational 100% of the time?
And yet it is a fact that the human genome does contain vast amounts of useless Junk DNA.
So, if your premise is true, what should you conclude from this?
Helpful hint: Continuing to deny the conclusive evidence that most of the genome is junk is not the correct answer.
Having seen some really bad computer code – yes, I would.
There are 50 or so species of cotton, divided into 4 groups - Australian diploids, Afro-Asian diploids, American diploids, and American tetraploids (which are allopolyploids derived from the previous two groups of diploids). There is an over 3-fold variation in DNA content, ranging from 1.72pg in G. thurberi and G. gossypioides to 5.68pg in G. nobile, with generally the Australian diploids having more DNA that the Afro-Asian diploids which in turn have more DNA that the American diploids. One subgroup of Australian diploids has more DNA that the tetraploids even though the tetraploids have 4 copies of the genome instead of 2.
What is all the extra DNA doing in Gossypium nobile?
It contributes to the fluffiness… 